March 31st will mark the five-year anniversary of the needless death of my sister, Terri Schiavo.

It is difficult to believe this much time has passed since that horrible event which will be forever seared into my memory.

I wish I could say things have changed for the better since my sisters death or that people with cognitive disabilities are now better protected in response to the horror she had to endure.

Tragically, however, it seems the rights of the brain-injured, elderly and others are still being violated.

All one has to do is look at what happened just last week. On March 21st, Fox aired an episode of The Family Guy that featured a "sketch" called "Terri Schiavo: The Musical." I was astonished at the producers cruel bigotry directed towards my sister and all cognitively disabled people.

Sadly, although more offensive than what my family has seen in the past from the media since Terri died, the bald-faced ignorance expressed in that episode of The Family Guy was nothing new. In fact, all signs indicate that we have embarked on a very disturbing path.

There is no disputing that Terris life  and death  had an astonishing impact on our nation. Our family still receives letters, emails and phone calls almost every day from people who tell us how Terris story touched them in profound ways, particularly when they come to know the facts.

Indeed, it was because of my familys experience trying to protect Terri that we realized how all persons with similar cognitive disabilities are completely vulnerable to state laws that currently make it legal to deny them the most basic care  food and water.

This horrifying realization was why we established Terris Foundation. In Terris name, my family now works to protect tens of thousands of people with similar brain-injuries from having their fundamental freedoms taken away by an aggressive anti-life movement hell-bent on portraying severely disabled and otherwise vulnerable human beings as nothing more than useless eaters.

If the amount of phone calls we receive is any indication, what happened to Terri has become common. I think most people have no idea how our individual rights to make decisions about basic care like food and water, antibiotics, etc., have been so dramatically eroded. This not only includes family members advocating for loved ones but also protecting oneself by medical directive.

We recently heard from a woman whose mother was being cared for at a hospice facility. The daughter was powerless to effectively advocate for her mother because she had no power of attorney.

Even though she was her mothers next-of-kin, and despite the fact her mother was begging her for food, the daughter was not allowed to feed her. It had been determined the mother was no longer able to swallow. But the daughter said her mother was eating safely just prior to being sent to hospice and questioned whether she still could. The mother was not given a feeding tube, and died just a short time later.

Perhaps the Death Panels Sarah Palin spoke of sounded like bombastic language. Yet when Palin added this term into our nations debate on health care, I believe she did not realize that many hospitals and facilities already have something frighteningly similar. Ethics committees are making many life and death decisions about patients, including whether to withhold simple provisions.

In a seemingly clandestine way, these ethics committees  comprised of medical and legal professionals  are empowering facilities to make life and death decisions independent of the family or a persons own wishes.

The chilling stories we receive make it clear few citizens have any idea how vulnerable they are when it comes to judgments left in the hands of these ethics committees and facilities. And with the federal government now controlling our health care, there is no reason not to believe that these types of committees wont become nationalized. Particularly when a health care system has been sabotaged by cost factors and quality of life judgments.

When our office receives phone calls from people fighting for their loved ones, I cannot help but look back and reflect on the courage of many individuals and groups who advocated on behalf of my sister.

As time has passed, however, many of those people, organizations and politicians  even many of our own friends  have fallen silent. Many who once ardently supported Terris life no longer actively educate or advocate for vulnerable patients.

With each troubling phone call from a frantic family, I am reminded there are countless other Terris in desperate need of our voice. Terris Foundation has been successful helping to save some, but sadly so many others have fallen victim.

I understand our nation faces many challenges today that may threaten our very existence. But how can we claim to be a just and honorable society, deserving of any blessing at all, if we richly reward hateful bigots while refusing to protect our weakest citizens?

Moreover, how did the tremendous courage and kindness we saw when we were fighting for Terris life have faded? How can any of us abandon this issue when all signs are that things are getting worse?

There are still many who support our efforts, who recognize the erosion of the value and dignity of the medically weak and who believe in protecting the life and liberty of all human beings.

The problem is their voices are often drowned out by the din of the pro-death lobby that claims death is the only dignified answer to a complicated problem.

Meanwhile the pro-death movement has not fallen silent. Rather, it has grown more vocal. The issue for them did not die with Terri. Indeed, their success in killing her seems to have only bolstered their determination to gain wider acceptance among the American people.

There will always be people with needs, there will always be others who work tirelessly to help them, and there will always be those who turn the other way; or worse  sit behind their drawing tables, disseminating cruel bigotry and hatred toward the disabled and vulnerable.

Until we all recognize that our inherit worth doesnt change because of lifes circumstances, illness, disability or other events, we will continue to rob our most vulnerable of their right to fairness, justice and the ability to guide their own course in life.

Until we all recognize that our inherit worth doesnt change because of lifes circumstances, illness, disability or other events, we will continue to rob our most vulnerable of their right to fairness, justice and the ability to guide their own course in life.

Five Years Ago Today, Terri Schiavo Dies After Almost Two Weeks Without Food or Water

Five years ago today Terri Schiavo died. By the order of Judge George W. Greer, Terri died a slow barbaric death by starvation and dehydration over a period of almost two weeks. We have been posting stories of the events that occurred on each of those days not only in respect for Terri's memory, but a reminder that in this moment countless people are suffering slow, agonizing deaths in hospice, nursing homes, and hospitals in America and around the world.

-----------------

Terri Schiavo Dies

From March 31, 2005 (FBW/BP)

Terri Schiavo, the 41-year-old disabled woman at the center of a nationwide life-and-death debate, died Thursday morning in her Florida hospice -- nearly two weeks after her feeding tube was pulled.

Her case captured the nation's attention in recent weeks, as Congress and President Bush intervened in an attempt to save her life. But in the end, Schiavo's parents failed to convince federal courts to re-insert her feeding tube.

Five years since the court-ordered murder of Terri Schindler Schiavo, I can still see the vase of flowers next to her bedside. The vase was filled with water, keeping the beautiful blooms resplendent. Terri had gone 13 days without water or food. She was literally withering before our eyes in the hours before her death. Her dying was not a peaceful and gentle process. In all my years as a priest, I had never seen anything like this. Her face showed emotions of terror combined with sadness. She died in a Florida hospice on March 31, five years ago.

Wednesday is Terris Day, a day when congregations and people of faith all over the country remember this woman whose life was cut short by the culture of death. On that day at 5pm, I will be the celebrant and homilist of the National Mass for Terri at Ave Maria University in Naples, Fla. We will pray with Terris family for all those in situations like hers.

Five years after Terris murder, the world has become an even more dangerous and cynical place.

Terri died on Easter Thursday. Liturgically, the Church considers the time from the Easter Vigil through the Sunday after Easter as one Easter Day. Terri suffered as the Church meditated on the sufferings of Christ, and she died as the Church celebrated his resurrection. Her anniversary this year takes place within Holy Week. We are assured that Terri shared in Jesus victory over death, and that should bring us comfort. But to look around us and see how strong the culture of death has become should send us all to our knees in prayer  and out to the streets in action.

Terris life and terrible death have apparently become, for some, a laughing matter. Anyone who saw Fox Televisions The Family Guy was asked to find humor in Terris situation. What an ugly little bugger, went the lyrics to a song. Maybe we should just unplug her. Besides being grotesque, the vile cartoon was built on fiction, not fact, and helped to perpetuate the lie that allowed so many people to accept Terris death as a good thing.

Doctors in Family Guy introduce us to all the machines that were supposed to be keeping Terri alive. But Terri was not kept alive on machines, and I didnt see any of those machines in her room. She had a simple feeding tube inserted at mealtimes to supply nutrition and water. She was sustained by the very things that keep you and me alive: food and water. And love. Terri was surrounded by the love of her parents, Bob and Mary, and of her brother and sister, Bobby Schindler and Suzanne Vitadamo.

Terri responded to me and others around her. She smiled and laughed when her father kissed her and his mustache tickled her face. When her mother asked her a question, I heard her trying to say something. She was not able to speak words, but she returned her moms kiss.

When I told her I wanted to pray with her and give her a blessing, she closed her eyes and, at the end of the prayer, opened them again. She was not a vegetable. She was a living person who was being starved to death. This was murder.

After Terris death, Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed that people like Terri, and those who are much worse off  including those who are not expected to recover  are not to be deprived of food and water. But our laws governing these matters today are devoid of humanity and of the basic sense of justice that this norm embodies. Thats why each and every one of us has to accept responsibility for what happened to Terri, and work to ensure it does not happen again.

Some people thought that the problem in Terris case was that she had never explicitly written down how she would want to be treated if she became unable to speak for herself, and thus it was up to the legal system to make the determination. Proponents of the living will sprang into action to make sure everyone signed one. But not many people realize that the whole concept of the living will was initiated by the euthanasia movement.

The problem today is not that one might be given unwanted treatments, but that one might be refused wanted treatments and even basic care. It makes much more sense to sign a Will to Live, which was designed by the National Right to Life Committee and allows people to appoint a proxy who will advocate for morally appropriate care.

If Terri had had the opportunity to sign a Will to Live, she might still be smiling and laughing with her mother, brother and sister, and she would have mourned the loss of her father last year. You can find a Will to Live here.

We can protect ourselves and our loved ones with a Will to Live, but we will only be successful in extending this protection to everyone if we fight the culture of death in the political arena. Every person devoted to the cause of life must become involved: Register to vote and make sure your family and friends are registered; learn the pro-life or pro-death positions of every candidate, and spread the word. Vote in every primary and, come November, when three dozen senators and every member of the House of Representatives are up for re-election, make your feelings known in the voting booth.

The fifth anniversary of Terris death coincides with two other milestone anniversaries: Its been 10 years since the world lost one of its most powerful defenders of life, Cardinal John J. OConnor, and 15 years since Pope John Paul II published his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, which spoke of the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end and affirmed the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree.

Terris rights were not respected, which is why Priests for Life and Terris family established Terris Day two years ago. Our aim is to promote education, prayer and activism to counter discrimination against the disabled.

I urge all readers of NCRegister.com, along with churches, schools and pro-life organizations, to observe this day. Terris senseless and cruel death can transform all of us into champions of life.

10
posted on 03/31/2010 5:37:45 AM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

Prayer for Those Who Are Terminally Ill

Lord Jesus, you healed so many people during your public ministry. I bring before you now, in prayer, all those who are terminally ill -- those afflicted with cancer, AIDS, and other illnesses.

Look lovingly and compassionately upon them. Let them feel the strength of your consolation. Help them and their families to accept this cross they are asked to carry. Protect them from euthanasia, Lord.

Let them see you carrying their cross with them, at their side, as you once carried yours to Calvary. May Mary be there, too, to comfort them.

Lord Jesus, I know and believe that, if it is your will, you can cure those I pray for (especially N.). I place my trust in you. I pray with faith, but I also pray as you did in Gethsemane: your will be done.

LE BLANC, France, March 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Little Sisters Disciples of the Lamb are a contemplative religious community in France that enables girls with Down syndrome to respond to a religious vocation.

The tiny community, founded in 1985 and based in Le Blanc, in the diocese of Bourges, is made up of seven sisters, five of whom have Down syndrome.

In a world where up to 90 percent of Down syndrome children are aborted, the Prioress of the Little Sisters Disciples of the Lamb says the order exists, "To allow those who have the last place in the world, to hold in the Church the exceptional place of spouses of Jesus Christ. To allow those who depend on others for their everyday life to take in charge, in their prayer, the intentions that are entrusted to them. To allow those whose life is held in contempt to the extent of being in danger from a culture of death, to witness by their consecration to the Gospel of Life."

The possibility of young women with Down syndrome being enabled to realize their religious vocation depends on the support of sisters without the disability, who have responded to a call to consecrate themselves to God with their disabled sisters and to form one community with them.

A leaflet produced by the community describes the Little Sisters Disciples of the Lamb as an order "Guided by the wisdom of St Benedict," and "following every day the little way taught by Saint Therese" that "teaches our little disabled sisters the manual labour necessary for their development. We live poverty in putting ourselves at their disposal. With them, we share the work of everyday life."

"The office, adoration and the praying of the rosary are adapted to their rhythm and their capacities. In a spirit of silence, our prayer feeds every day on the Eucharist and on the meditation of the Gospel."

"Today, more girls with Down Syndrome are knocking at our door. To respond to their request, our family needs new vocations. Vocations to share a contemplative life with 'the smallest in the Kingdom'."

The order's vocation leaflet encourages "young girls touched by the spirit of poverty and dedication, ready to offer a whole existence to the service of Christ in the person of their sisters with Down Syndrome," to visit the priory, which is close to the abbey of Fontgombault, for a period of vocational discernment.

A short YouTube clip taken from a 26-minute documentary on the community, produced by the French pro-life group Exaltavit, is available here.

Information on the Little Sisters Disciples of the Lamb is available from the Foundation of Monasteries, 83 rue Dutot, 75015 Paris, France.

20
posted on 04/04/2010 12:37:12 PM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

BOSTON, March 31, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A study published in the March edition of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine suggests that a few physicians may have killed children who were very sick by giving them fatal morphine doses, after the parents had requested euthanasia.

Dr. Joanne Wolfe, a palliative pain specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Children's Hospital in Boston, interviewed 141 parents of children who died of cancer in order to explore the parents' motivation in considering and enquiring about hastening their child's death.

The study found that 19 of the 141 parents, or 13 percent, said they had considered asking about ending their child's life, and 13 parents reported having discussed intentionally ending their child's life. Parents of five children said they had explicitly asked a clinician for medications to end the child's life, and parents of three said it had been carried out with an overdose of morphine.

Dr. Wolfe wrote that the objective of the study was "to estimate the frequency of hastening death discussions, describe current parental endorsement of hastening death and intensive symptom management, and explore whether children's pain influences these views in a sample of parents whose child died of cancer."

"With two US states now allowing legalized physician-assisted suicide," continued Dr. Wolfe, "these discussions may become more frequent. Attitudes toward hastening death in noninfant children with life-threatening conditions have seldom been described."

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told LifeSiteNews (LSN) that he is seriously concerned by the finding of the study that medical professionals may have been willing to break the law and cause the death of a child in response to the request of parents.

"The fact is that if euthanasia of children were legal, such as it is in the Netherlands, there would be little to no protection for these children," Schadenberg said.

"Thankfully the actual number of children who were allegedly euthanized is small. The fact is that these children required excellent care, not death."

Dr. Wolfe observed that the child's experience of pain affects hastening death (HD) considerations by the parents, but many are not given adequate information about the legal options for pain relief, which can include sedating children into unconsciousness.

"Several studies indicate that both caregivers and physicians tend to confuse the unintended adverse effects of intensive symptom management with the intentional hastening of death. In our sample, the 3 families who reported intentionally hastening their child's death described doing so using morphine, which raises the question of whether they had misinterpreted the physicians' intentions. In fact, evidence indicates that opioids can be used safely at the end of life and that their effect on survival, if any, is negligible."

"Our results suggest that more than 1 of every 8 parents report considering HD during their child's illness, and they tended to do so if their child was in pain. In the context of an HD discussion, identifying sources of suffering and clearly explaining effective and legal options, including proportionately intensive symptom management, may ease parents' considerations of hastening their child's death," the report concluded.

The full text of the study, titled "Considerations About Hastening Death Among Parents of Children Who Die of Cancer" is available here.

22
posted on 04/04/2010 12:43:53 PM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

Some say there is no greater pain than a parent losing a child. So imagine watching for weeks as your disabled child is deliberately and slowly killed. Her excruciating death is by neglect  failing to feed or give her water. Any parent who stood by and allowed that to happen would be criminally charged and excoriated by the media and every decent person.

But what if you were forbidden to help her? And what if a judge even ordered police to arrest anyone who put even a drop of water on her lips?

March 31st marks the anniversary of Terri Schindler Schiavos excruciating death by dehydration. Despite the vote of every U.S. senator, passionate pleas by congressmen, and President Bush flying halfway across the country to sign a law to help Terri, judges ordered that this innocent woman be killed.

Throughout it all, as the world watched, Terris family  who deserved to be angry at this cruelty and injustice  exhibited profound faith. Less than an hour after Terris heart stopped beating, in an extraordinary display of Christ-like humility, her brother Bobby faced the TV cameras and spoke to all who had clamored for her death.

Did he lash out at them, calling them to account for the suffering they had caused? No.

Did he, out of mercy, state that he had forgiven them? No.

In one of the most breath-taking  and nearly inconceivable  displays of Christian submission, he asked for forgiveness. He asked forgiveness if he or his family had caused offense to anyone.

Jesus taught us to pray forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors (Matthew 6:12).

Few of us have faced the pain and injustice that Terris family faced. Even so, we can be dearly tempted to nurse grudges as we confront unrighteousness.

The Schindlers, however, lived out the key trait for a pure heart. Forgiveness freed them from the stranglehold of bitterness and despair. It gave them strength to continue on to help others, which they have done through the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation.

Sadly, the cruelty continues. Just days before the fifth anniversary of Terris death, the FOX TV show The Family Guy aired a vulgar episode mocking Terri and others with cognitive disabilities. This reaching-down-to-the-depths-of-depravity was met with an outpouring of support for the Schindler family.

Terri and her family have touched many lives. We wont forget her. And her story is not complete without remembering the Schindlers powerful example of Christs love.

23
posted on 04/04/2010 12:48:26 PM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

The House of Commons is currently considering Bill C-384, a bill that would legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. This bill -- a private member's bill scheduled for further debate and a vote on first reading sometime in May -- should be rejected by every member of parliament.

Shortly before the passing of severely handicapped Terri Schiavo in Florida in 2005, whose death was hastened by a U.S. court order to remove her feeding tube, Patrick J. Buchanan wrote: "That there arose a national outcry at the execution of Schiavo -- so loud Congress and president Bush heard it and came to the rescue -- is a sign America is not morally dead ... yet. But a culture of death has taken deep root in America's soul."

The term "vegetative state," which was applied to the Schiavo case and her condition, indicates the condition of those patients whose "state" continues for over a year. Such people show no evident sign of being aware of themselves or their environment, and seem unable to interact with others or to react to specific stimuli. Although such patients remain prisoners of their condition for long periods of time and without needing technological support, it cannot be underestimated that there has been at least partial recovery in some of these cases.

Medical science, therefore, is unable to predict with exact certainty which patients in this condition will recover, and which will not.

Unfortunately, there are those who cast doubt on the persistence of the "human quality" of these patients, suggesting that the clinical term "vegetative" could or should be applied directly to the sick person as such, actually demeaning their value and personal dignity. The sick person in a vegetative state has the right to basic health care. The administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act.

The "quality of life," often imposed by economic, social and psychological pressures, cannot take precedence over general principles according to which even the simple doubt of being in the presence of a living person morally obliges one to respectfully abstain from any act that aims at anticipating the person's death.

Moreover, it is not possible to say that the withdrawal of a feeding tube will not be the source of considerable suffering for the sick person, even if we can see only the patient's reactions at the level of the autonomic nervous system or of gestures.

Our present culture tends to consider suffering the epitome of evil. In such a culture there is a great temptation to resolve the problem of suffering by eliminating it at the root, by hastening death so that it occurs at the moment considered most suitable. True compassion leads to sharing another's pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.

The pleas of the gravely ill who sometimes request death should not be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia; in fact, it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love. Intentionally causing one's own death, or suicide, is a rejection of God's sovereignty and loving plan. It is a refusal of love for self, the denial of a natural instinct to live, a flight from the duties of justice and charity owed to one's neighbour and to society.

No one should be allowed to permit in any way the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.

In the Netherlands, a policy originally encompassing only persistent requests for death from hopelessly suffering and dying patients has steadily expanded so that physicians have been allowed to kill patients who were physically healthy and handicapped children who never asked for death.

The Netherlands stands as a stark reminder of the slippery slope leading from supposedly limited killing to a broader culture of death.

There exists in contemporary culture a certain Promethean attitude which leads people to think that they can control life and death by taking the decisions about them into their own hands. What really happens in this case is that the individual is overcome and crushed by a death deprived of any prospect of meaning or hope. What any sick person needs, besides medical care, is love -- the human and supernatural warmth provided by those close to him such as family, nurses and doctors.

Terri Schiavo's public "execution" is a strong reminder that euthanasia, understood as an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, is senseless and inhumane and should be opposed in all its forms.

24
posted on 04/04/2010 12:50:58 PM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

>>Terri Schiavo's public "execution" is a strong reminder that euthanasia, understood as an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, is senseless and inhumane and should be opposed in all its forms.

Thank you wagglebee for this post -- and the multiple others -- regarding Terri Schiavio and her legacy. As my Freepage states:

We should never forget that the US government, through an out of control judicial system and a "husband" who wanted her dead, murdered Terri Schindler Schiavo. May Terri rest in the embrace of God's love, and may her family find peace through their strong and abiding Roman Catholic faith.

25
posted on 04/04/2010 5:51:22 PM PDT
by vox_freedom
(America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)

Last year we upgraded National Pro-Life T-Shirt Week with our Yo! Where's the Shirt!? Photo Contest. With over 2,000 photos submitted we considered it a success for our first year trying it. This year we are out to top that number and there is a new twist on how we are going to do it!

This year we have two shirts. A RED shirt that says "Abortion Kills a Person" and a BLUE shirt that says "It's ok to be Pro-Life". Whichever shirt you wear, there are going to be hundreds of tasks for you to complete! Good luck to everyone!

Every abortion kills a living human being - that is a fact. From the moment of creation, when that human being is but a single cell, all the way to the moment of birth, there is a child that is undergoing a period of remarkable growth and development. Abortion stops that miraculous growth cold and robs the world of all that child would have accomplished. That child is just gone.

NPLTW is organized by American Life League with the intent to increase awareness of abortion and the reality of how many innocent babies are murdered every day.

Primarily, we are concerned with getting people to think of the child as a person from the moment of fertilization. It is much harder to murder a person than it is to "remove a lump of tissues," and it is only when we finally get the nation thinking in those terms that we will be able to make abortion a crime, as it should be.

Just by wearing the T-shirt and being out there in public, you will help to accomplish that goal.

2010 NTPLW Contest

Got a question about National Pro-life T-shirt Week?

This year, we want as many people to get involved with National Pro-Life T-shirt Week as possible. How are we going to do that? We're going to get YOU out of the house and into the streets to help spread the message of Personhood to the public. American Life League is going to be holding our first-ever "Yo! Where's the shirt?" Photo Contest.

In a few weeks, we will be posting a list of "tasks" for you to accomplish while wearing your pro-life gear. For every task you complete you'll get points*. The more tasks you complete, the more points you get. Simple, right? How will we know you actually completed the task? Easy! You'll be posting a photo of yourself in action right here! Once you've registered and your photo has been approved you're in the contest. Contestants can be tracked on our leader board so you will always know who has brought their A-GAME. The contest is going to run from 12:01am on April 27th through 11:59pm on May 3, 2010. At the end of the week, the three pro-lifers with the most points* will win some awesome stuff: Things like pro-life shirts, hats, CDs and much more.

Make sure you get your official 2010 NPLTW shirt and register for the "Yo! Wheres the shirt?" photo contest. It's going to be a great way for you and your friends to get out and spread the word.

P.S. You never know when we might start "leaking" some of the tasks a bit early, so check back here often.

This is the sticker you need to wear if you are participating without an official 2010 NPLTW T-Shirt. You can order stickers for free or print and cut out this image. In Internet Explorer, just right-click on the image, and click Print Picture. In Firefox, right-click, click View Image, then press Ctrl+P

* "Points are awarded simply as a way of measuring how much activity you have done for this contest. Points have no monetary or other value."

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Many people, including those whose mission is to help women and girls who are victims of sexual assault and abuse, believe abortion is the best solution if a pregnancy occurs.

Yet our research shows that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault don't want abortion, and say abortion only compounds their trauma.

How can you deny an abortion to a twelve-year-old girl who is the victim of incest?

Typically, people on both sides of the abortion debate accept the premise that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault want abortions. From this fact, it naturally follows that the reason women want abortions in these cases is because it will help them to put the assault behind them, recover more quickly, and avoid the additional trauma of giving birth to a rapists child.

But in fact, the welfare of a mother and her child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases. As the stories of many women confirm, both the mother and the child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence.

Sadly, however, the testimonies of women who have actually been pregnant through sexual assault are routinely left out of this public debate. Many people, including sexual assault victims who have never been pregnant, may be forming opinions based on their own prejudices and fears rather than the real life experiences of those people who have been in this difficult situation and reality.

For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done prior to this book, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent did not have abortions. This figure is remarkably similar to the 73 percent birth rate found in our sample of 164 pregnant rape victims. This one finding alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.1

Several reasons were given for not aborting. Many women who become pregnant through sexual assault do not believe in abortion, believing it would be a further act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children. Further, many believe that their childrens lives may have some intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand. This child was brought into their lives by a horrible, repulsive act. But perhaps God, or fate, will use the child for some greater purpose. Good can come from evil.

The woman may also sense, at least at a subconscious level, that if she can get through the pregnancy she will have conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of courage, strength, and honor. It is proof that she is better than the rapist. While he was selfish, she can be generous. While he destroyed, she can nurture.

Adding to the Trauma

Many people assume that abortion will at least help a rape victim put the assault behind her and get on with her life. But evidence shows that abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back the clock to make a woman un-pregnant.

Instead, it is a real life event which is always very stressful and often traumatic. Once we accept that abortion is itself an event with deep ramifications for a womans life, then we must look carefully at the special circumstances of the pregnant sexual assault victim. Evidence indicates that abortion doesn't help and only causes further injury to an already bruised psyche?

But before we even get to this issue, we must ask: do most women who become pregnant as a result of sexual assault want to abort?

In our survey of women who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest, many women who underwent abortions indicated that they felt pressured or were strongly directed by family members or health care workers to have abortions. The abortion came about not because of the woman's desire to abort but as a response to the suggestions or demands of others. In many cases, resources such as health workers, counselors and others who are normally there to help women after sexual assault pushed for abortion.

Family pressure, withholding of support and resources that the woman needed to continue the pregnancy, manipulative an inadequate counseling and other problems all played a role into pushing women into abortions, even though abortion was often not what the woman really wanted.

Further, in almost every case involving incest, it was the girl's parents or the perpetrator who made the decision and arrangements for the abortion, not the girl herself. None of these women reported having any input into the decision. Each was simply expected to comply with the choice of others. In several cases, the abortion was carried out over the objections of the girl, who clearly told others that wanted to continue the pregnancy. In a few cases, victim was not even clearly aware that she was pregnant or that the abortion was being carried out.

"Medical Rape"

Second, although many people believe that abortion will help a woman resolve the trauma of rape more quickly, or at least keep her from being reminded of the rape throughout her pregnancy, many of the women in our survey who had abortions reported that abortion only added to and accentuated the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault.

This is easy to understand when one considers that many women have described their abortions as being similar to a rape (and even used the term "medical rape), it is easy to see that abortion is likely to add a second trauma to the earlier trauma of sexual assault. Abortion involves an often painful intrusion into a womans sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. Even if she protests and asks the abortionist to stop, chances are she will be either ignored or told that it's too late to stop the abortion.

For many women this experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong. It is especially strong for women who have a prior history of sexual assault, whether or not the aborted child was conceived during an act of assault. This is just one reason why women with a history of sexual assault are likely to experience greater distress during and after an abortion than are other women.

Research also shows that women who abort and women who are raped often describe similar feelings of depression, guilt, lowered self-esteem, violation and resentment of men. Rather than easing the psychological burdens experienced by those who have been raped, abortion added to them. Jackie wrote:

I soon discovered that the aftermath of my abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the pain I would feel deep within causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that after the abortion I could continue my life as if nothing had happened.2

Those encouraging, pushing or insisting on abortion often do so because they are uncomfortable dealing with sexual assault victims, or perhaps because they harbor some prejudice against victims whom they feel let it happen. Wiping out the pregnancy is a way of hiding the problem. It is a quick and easy way to avoid dealing with the womans true emotional, social and financial needs. As Kathleen wrote:

I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child conceived in rape, feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used by pro-abortionists to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story.

Trapping the Incest Victim

The case against abortion for incest pregnancies is even stronger. Studies show that incest victims rarely ever voluntarily agree to abortion. Instead of viewing the pregnancy as unwanted, the incest victim is more likely to see the pregnancy as a way out of the incestuous relationship because the birth of her child will expose the sexual activity. She is also likely to see in her pregnancy the hope of bearing a child with whom she can establish a truly loving relationship, one far different than the exploitive relationship in which she has been trapped.

But while the girl may see her pregnancy as a possible way of release from her situation, it poses a threat to her abuser. It is also poses a threat to the pathological secrecy which may envelop other members of the family who are afraid to acknowledge the abuse. Because of this dual threat, the victim may be coerced or forced into an unwanted abortion by both the abuser and other family members.

For example, Edith, a 12-year-old victim of incest impregnated by her stepfather, writes twenty-five years after the abortion of her child:

Throughout the years I have been depressed, suicidal, furious, outraged, lonely, and have felt a sense of loss . . . The abortion which was to be in my best interest just has not been. As far as I can tell, it only saved their reputations, solved their problems, and allowed their lives to go merrily on. . . . My daughter, how I miss her so. I miss her regardless of the reason for her conception."

Abortion businesses who routinely ignore this evidence and neglect to interview minors presented for abortion for signs of coercion or incest are actually contributing to the victimization of young girls. Not only are they robbing the victim of her child, they are concealing a crime, abetting a perpetrator, and handing the victim back to her abuser so that the exploitation can continue.

For example, the parents of three teenaged Baltimore girls pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree rape and child sexual abuse. The father had repeatedly raped the three girls over a period of at least nine years, and the rapes were covered up by at least ten abortions. At least five of the abortions were performed by the same abortionist at the same clinic.3

Sadly, there is strong evidence that failing to ask questions about the pregnancy and to report cases of sexual abuse are widespread at abortion clinics. Undercover investigations by pro-life groups have found numerous cases in which clinics agreed to cover up cases of statutory rape or ongoing abuse of minor girls by older men and simply perform an abortion instead.

In 2002 a judge found a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Arizona negligent for failing to report a case in which a 13-year-old girl was impregnated and taken for an abortion by her 23-year-old foster brother. The abortion business did not notify authorities until the girl returned six months later for a second abortion. A lawsuit alleged that the girl was subjected to repeated abuse and a second abortion because Planned Parenthood failed to notify authorities when she had her first abortion. The girl's foster brother was later imprisoned for abusing her.4

Finally, we must recognize that children conceived through sexual assault also deserve to have their voices heard. Rebecca Wasser-Kiessling, who was conceived in a rape, is rightfully proud of her mothers courage and generosity and wisely reminds us of a fundamental truth that transcends biological paternity: I believe that God rewarded my birth mother for the suffering she endured, and that I am a gift to her. The serial rapist is not my creator; God is.

Similarly, Julie Makimaa, who works diligently against the perception that abortion is acceptable or even necessary in cases of sexual assault, proclaims, It doesn't matter how I began. What matters is who I will become.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Now that President Barack Obama has signed the pro-abortion health care bill into law, a supporter of his has admitted the rationing components in it. During an appearance on ABC's "This Week" Paul Krugman admits some of the concerns that pro-life groups pointed out during the debate.

Krugman claims accurately that the cost/benefit board established over private medicine by the new health care program will be able to impose more or less binding judgments refusing care.

He said these judgments will save a lot of money in the context of treating the elderly and people with disabilities and terminal illnesses.

Krugman also said panel will prevent treatment that isn't medically useful.

Wesley J. Smith, an author and attorney who is a bioethics watchdog, noticed the interview.

"No, the money won't be taken out of the hide of patients who want physiologically useless treatment, it will come at the lethal cost to patients whose treatment will be refused because it could work, based on the invidious judgment that the patients life is not worth the money to support," he said in response.

"In short, Krugman has admitted that contrary to the many mendacious denials by Obamacare supporters, the new regime will impose rationing," as happens in the UK, Smith added.

"This is akin to imposing a duty to die because when we reach a certain point in life, we will not be able to obtain treatment we want that could keep us going. Indeed, for me, this centralized federal control over what will and will not be provided in medicineand to whomis the biggest reason (among so many) why Obamacare is wrong," Smith commented.

My proposed model uncouples organ donation from the donors death. The process begins as before with they identification of an individual with good renal function and with severe, irreversible brain injury with no hope for purposeful or prolonged existence. The family decides to withdraw care with the expectation of the patients imminent death. A DNR order is written. With the consent of the donor family, the patient is transported to the operating room for kidney recovery. Both kidneys are recovered in a controlled surgical procedure with vascular control, equivalent to bilateral nephrectomy in a neurologically intact patient. General anesthesia and standard analgesic care are administered, as would be given to a trauma victim with severe head injury undergoing surgery. The patient returns to the intensive care unit and end-of-life care is instituted, in a more relaxed time period without the requisite rush to the operating room following asystole. This protocol enables the family to grieve and spend time with the decedent after death.

Currently, a donor must first be declared dead, either by neurological criteria (brain death)not the kind discussed hereor after removal of life support and cardiac arrest. This proposal would reverse the order, first take the kidneys, and then remove the life support, under the pretense of obeying the dead donor rule as the actual death could come after the kidneys were removed. But this sophistry: The patient couldnt possibly live without kidneys, and many would die during the surgery.

Morrissey says these patients will die if life support is removed anyway. Indeed, he claims:

With what certainty do we know that cardiopulmonary death will ensue following the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy? To date, no patient entered into consideration for DCD has been reported to have prolonged cardiac function or entered a persistent vegetative state. Cases of prolonged cardiac function after extubation beyond even 24 hours are exceedingly rare.

So in essence, whats the harm? Theres plenty: Consent or no consent, there is harm in treating a patient like an objectboth to the specific individual and society. Besides, plenty of patients considered for the heart death protocol didnt become donors precisely because they didnt die within an hour as expected. Moreover, according to a study published last year in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, as reported here:

There is a misconception that withdrawal of ventilatory and hemodynamic support will result in immediate or imminent death in the ICU. A survey of withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in the critically ill adults at 15 ICUs found that 21 of 166 patients (13%) survived to ICU discharge after withdrawal of life support.

Dr. Morrissey might respond by differentiating his proposal from the patients in this study, since he would select only the most imminently dying from devastating head injuries. Perhaps, but as this blog has abundantly demonstrated, standards slip. Besides, it is certainly conceivable that at least some patients whose kidneys were removed could possibly have otherwise survived withdrawal of mechanical ventilation.

Dr. Morrisseys proposal would indeed, be killing for organs, even if the heart stopped after removing the organs. Moreover, once we walked through that door, the practice would only expand as a matter of simple logic. To maintain the peoples trust in transplant medicine and to prevent human beings from being used as mere harvestable resource, such proposals should be rejected at every turn.

34
posted on 04/11/2010 11:17:20 AM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

SOUTH BEND -- The University of Notre Dame on Thursday issued an institutional statement affirming "its commitment to the defense of human life in all its stages."

The university also has adopted new principles for the institution's charitable activity.

"I don't know that this will be a dramatic change," the Rev. John I. Jenkins, Notre Dame's president, said in a telephone interview. "We wanted principles that we could apply consistently."

The development and adoption of the statement and principles were among recommendations made to Jenkins by the campus Task Force on Supporting the Choice for Life.

Jenkins and the university faced widespread criticism last spring for inviting President Barack Obama, who favors abortion rights, to campus to give the commencement address and receive an honorary degree. Jenkins created the task force in September.The new statement on the defense of life reads: "Consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church on such issues as abortion, research involving human embryos, euthanasia, the death penalty, and other related life issues, the University of Notre Dame recognizes and upholds the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death."

Hey, how about when you invite someone to YOUR campus, you do not allow any hiding of icons? How about allowing the showing on the Holy Name of Christ, a cross and not allowing anyone to cover them up as if you were ashamed.

Hey, how about BEING a witness, instead of asking others to be?

38
posted on 04/11/2010 7:24:48 PM PDT
by tuckrdout
( A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back. Prov.29:11)

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, Colorado, USA, spoke recently on the vocation of Christians in American public life. In his address at Houston Baptist University, the Archbishop said, Im here as a Catholic Christian and an American citizenin that order. I believe abortion is the foundational human rights issue of our lifetime.

We need to do everything we can to support women in their pregnancies and to end the legal killing of unborn children.

We may want to remember that the Romans had a visceral hatred for Carthage not because Carthage was a commercial rival, or because its people had a different language and customs. The Romans hated Carthage above all because its people sacrificed their infants to Baal.

For the Romans, who themselves were a hard people, that was a unique kind of wickedness and barbarism.

As a nation, we might profitably ask ourselves whom and what weve really been worshipping in our 40 million legal abortions since 1973. ELN. March.

Milwaukee, WI -- A new undercover video taken of staff at a Planned Parenthood abortion business in Milwaukee, Wisconsin shows them pressuring a woman to have an abortion. The video also has staff members giving medically inaccurate abortion counseling and distorting basic facts of fetal development at the taxpayer-funded abortion center.

OMAHA, Nebraska, April 13, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Nebraska legislature has given final approval to a new law banning abortion after 20 weeks gestation on the basis that an unborn child feels pain at that age.

The new law is the first of its kind in the United States and pro-life advocates believe it could pose a direct and historic challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, which deprived the states the power to regulate or restrict abortion.

The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (LB 1103), authored by Speaker Mike Flood, passed Tuesday on the third and final reading of the bill by an overwhelming pro-life majority of 44 in favor and 5 against.

Gov. Dave Heineman is expected to sign LB 1103 into law.

The laws passage is especially historic, because it portends a fresh new challenge and look at the U.S. Supreme Courts 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, which led to the virtual legalization of abortion on demand. The Nebraska law applies a different standard  that of the unborn childs ability to feel pain - for restricting abortion, while the high court used the standard of what they then considered to be point of fetal viability.

"The Nebraska Legislature took a bold step today which should ratchet up the abortion debate across America," said Julie Schmit-Albin, Executive Director of Nebraska Right to Life in a statement today.

"LB 1103 creates a case of first impression for the courts to acknowledge the capability to feel pain as a compelling state interest to protect those unborn babies from an excruciatingly painful death.

The legislation, which now awaits the governors signature, bans abortions after 20 weeks of post-fertilization age with two exceptions: first, when the pregnancy puts the mother in danger of death or substantial and irreversible physical harm to a major bodily function. The second exception was added in an amendment and allows an abortionist to perform late abortions for the sake of increasing the probability of a live birth, or to preserve an unborn childs life and health after a live birth.

Although the topic of fetal pain is still under much discussion (and controversy, owing to its implications to the abortion debate) a growing consensus of medical knowledge has pointed to the fact that unborn infants experience pain by 20 weeks and possibly earlier. The pain may even be more acute than for older humans, as some research indicates their immature nervous systems have not developed coping mechanisms that help the body better endure pain.

The law notes that unborn children have been observed to seek to evade certain stimuli in a manner that would be interpreted as a response to pain. Additionally, the bill says unborn children exhibit hormonal stress responses to painful stimuli that were reduced with the application of pain medication.

Abortionists who break the law would face a Class IV felony charge, which carries a penalty of a five year maximum prison sentence, $10,000 fine, or both.

The bill would allow women and even the fathers of aborted unborn children to sue and seek damages from abortionists who violate the law.

The law, if passed and signed into law, would become operative on October 15, 2010.

Bellevue, NE (LifeNews.com) -- LeRoy Carhart, one of the few late-term abortion practitioners left in the wake of the death of George Tiller, has to be frustrated by legislation in Kansas and Nebraska that makes continuing or expanding his abortion business more difficult. Nebraska yesterday saw two new pro-life bills go into law that adversely affect his business.

In Nebraska, one new law makes abortion practitioners engage in better screening and gives women a chance to file lawsuits over post-abortion mental health problems.

Operation Rescue president Troy Newman tells LifeNews.com the legislation will hamper Carhart's abortion business when they go into effect in October.

"We are extremely happy that the Nebraska fetal pain bill has been signed into law, along with another that will require mental health screening for abortion patients. These laws will essentially ban all abortions beginning at 20 weeks when it has been determined that pre-born babies can feel pain," he said.

Last year, Carhart threatened to reopen an abortion clinic in Kansas and continue post- viability abortions after the closure of Women's Health Care Services that Tiller ran.

Operation Rescue launched a campaign that successfully prevented Carhart from coming back to Kansas where he had worked for over 10 years doing abortions on women in their latest stages of pregnancy.

"It soon became clear that Carhart planned instead to conduct the late-term abortions at his existing clinic in Bellevue, Nebraska," Newman said. "[We] later confirmed that Carhart has in fact been doing a small number of post- viability abortions in Nebraska, possibly as late as the thirtieth week of pregnancy."

In response, the group conducted an outreach in Nebraska last summer that garnered a great deal of publicity. During interviews generated by that event, Carhart boasted that Nebraska laws were lenient enough to allow him to conduct late-term abortions in that state.

"Those statements caught the ear of Speaker Mike Flood, who sponsored the two groundbreaking bills aimed at preventing Carhart from conducting late-term abortions while providing new protections for pre-born babies," Newman said.

Newman said the bills were passed thanks to hard work from Nebraska Right to Life and Flood and that the bills combined with complaints against Carhart, based on affidavits from former Carhart employees that were submitted by Operation Rescue, Nebraskans United for Life, and Rescue the Heartland, are hurting Carhart's abortion business.

"It is our prayer that one day soon there will be a peaceful end to Carhart's entire abortion business," he said.

Meanwhile, Julie Schmit-Albin, Executive Director of Nebraska Right to Life, agrees with the analysis.

"Speaker of the Legislature Mike Flood, like many Nebraskans, was very troubled when he heard that Carhart wanted to become the go-to late term abortionist of the Midwest after George Tiller's death last summer." said Schmit-Albin. "Carhart moonlighted with Tiller for ten years in Wichita, Kansas. Speaker Flood was in a position to do something to ensure that Nebraska does not become the late term abortion capital of the Midwest and we thank him for his diligence and leadership in introducing and prioritizing LB 1103."

"For years LeRoy Carhart has thumbed his nose at Nebraska's outdated post viability statute which contains a health exception you could drive a Mack truck through," the pro-life Nebraska leader added.

"LB 1103 creates a case of first impression for the courts to acknowledge the capability to feel pain as a compelling state interest to protect those unborn babies from an excruciatingly painful death. The more narrowly defined medical emergency exception with an objective standard should go a long way towards closing the loopholes in current Nebraska statute," she told LifeNews.com.

45
posted on 04/18/2010 10:44:39 AM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

MINOT, North Dakota, April 14, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)  A measure to prohibit physicians from decapitating and crushing the skulls of live unborn children during abortions is seeking clearance to begin gathering signatures for the November ballot, a North Dakota grassroots pro-life organization has announced.

Daniel Woodard, head of North Dakota's Stop Decapitation Network, filed the paperwork to the North Dakota Secretary of State and Attorney General on Tuesday. The group aims to collect 12,844 signatures by August 4 in order to place the measure on the 2010 ballot.

"It's unconscionable and unthinkable that any physician who claims to care for the health of others would remove the heads of children or crush them and toss them in the trash," Woodard told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview Wednesday.

Woodard said that he was inspired to pursue the ballot initiative after reading the quotes of abortion doctors who, in federal court hearings regarding the partial-birth abortion ban, testified to decapitating and crushing the skulls of unborn infants in other types of abortions. Woodard's measure would apply not only to partial-birth abortions, but also to abortions inside the mother's womb.

During a federal district court case out of New York in 2004, abortionist Dr. Stephen T. Chasen said that the fetal head is extracted by placing the forceps around it and crushing it. Dr. Chasen went on to say that he did not have any caring or concern for the fetus whose head [he was] crushing. Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, another abortionist, said, For the vast majority of D&Es [it is] necessary either [to] crush or collapse the fetal skull. She told the judge she does not use the word crush when speaking to her patients.

According to Woodard, the initiated measure would provide a class A felony penalty to physicians participating in skull-crushing or decapitation abortions. That penalty would become a class AA felony if a skull fragment from the unborn child were to cause serious bodily injury to the mother during or following a decapitation or skull crushing abortion.

When asked about this legislation, state Rep. Dan Ruby from Minot said, I can hardly believe these crimes happen, especially when physicians can do fetal brain surgery. Any sane American knows that life-saving physicians are supposed to do no harm, most especially not crushing or removing the skulls of children who did nothing to deserve this. I wish Stop Decapitation Network every success on this inspiring endeavor.

The Secretary of State Al Jaeger has until Thursday, April 22 to approve the measure to begin collecting signatures.

Red River Women's Clinic (RRWC) of Fargo declined to comment to LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) on the legislation because they had not yet seen the initiative. RRWC, North Dakota's lone abortuary, only provides abortion until the 15th week of pregnancy - at which point the child's head is too small to purposefully crush or decapitate.

LSN's attempt to reach Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota for comment was unanswered as of press time.

Woodard said he had spoken to about ten state legislators, and had so far only found support for his anti-decapitation measure. "Even if a legislator was against it, I doubt he'd say it, it would be unpopular," he noted, adding that "even the most liberal newspapers in the state" have had fair coverage.

"It's because they have to be, because the way the bill is framed, [the media] can't really say 'these are evil anti-choicers who hate women,'" he said.

Woodard said he chose the ballot route instead of the legislature to expedite the process: the soonest that it could become law legislatively would be in the summer of 2011, "whereas if I put it on this November ballot, it becomes law right away," he said. Even should the ballot initiative fail, he said, he would "absolutely" expect to see state legislators take up the measure.

46
posted on 04/18/2010 10:47:23 AM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

TAMPA, Florida, April 12, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- The Florida Board of Medicine has revoked the medical license of a Sarasota doctor who killed the wrong unborn baby in a "selective reduction" procedure.

Selective reduction is a procedure in which a doctor kills one or more of multiple unborn children by injecting a feticide into the fetus slated to be aborted. Its use has increased because of modern fertility treatments, which often result in women carrying multiple babies.

In 2006, Dr. Matthew Kuchinas attempted to kill one of two twins because it had Down syndrome and a possible heart defect, despite the fact that he had never performed the selective reduction procedure before. He found out a week after performing the procedure that he aborted the wrong fetus; the other child was killed shortly thereafter.

According to Health News Florida, he defended himself by stating that his patient knew he had never done the technique before and that he hated to tell patients "no." Kachinas has also said that there must have been a problem with the ultrasound machine he was using to target one of the fetuses.

Such testimony was found unpersuasive, and the Florida Board of Medicine revoked Kachinas' license last weekend. He has now been involuntarily hospitalized after telling a reporter that he intended to kill himself.

Kachinas had also been charged with two, less-serious offenses. In 2002 he attempted to smuggle the anesthesia drug Propofol with him when going to his job in Tampa by taping vials to his legs beneath his pants. He said that the clinic did not keep it in stock and he preferred that drug to others.

In 2004 he allegedly falsified records by claiming that an aborted fetus had died naturally.

Dr. Kachinas had also previously been accused of headbutting pro-life protestor Linda McGlade after she attempted to speak to him peacefully.

The news out of Sarasota, Florida caught many people by surprise. A doctor in the city has lost his license because he aborted what is now described as the wrong baby. Back in 2006, Dr. Matthew Kachinas had been asked to perform an abortion on a baby that had been identified as having Down syndrome and other congenital defects. Instead, the doctor aborted that babys healthy twin.

As reported in The Miami Herald:

A Sarasota doctor has lost his license for mistakenly aborting a healthy twin during a procedure targeting a deformed fetus. Immediately after the Florida Board of Medicines decision Saturday, Dr. Matthew Kachinas was involuntarily hospitalized because he said he planned to commit suicide. Kachinas had blamed faulty ultrasound equipment for the 2006 mistake. He was targeting a fetus with Down syndrome and signs of a heart defect.

CBS News added further details: The woman had asked the doctor to perform a selective termination procedure on the male fetus, which had congenital defects. An ultrasound later showed that the other fetus, a female that did not appear to have medical problems, had been terminated.

What are we to make of this? We now know that the vast majority of babies identified prenatally as carrying the genetic markers for Down syndrome are aborted. National statistics indicate that 80-90% of such babies are now aborted - meaning that we have launched a search and destroy mission on Down syndrome babies in the womb.

The situation with Dr. Kachinas reveals the horribly confused morality that marks modern America and, in far too many cases, the practice of medicine. This doctor was asked to perform what is now euphemistically called a selective reduction. Instead, he aborted the wrong baby, killing a healthy baby instead of the baby identified as carrying the markers for Down syndrome.

Consider what this means for the sanctity of human life. We are now looking at babies as consumer products. We will accept babies that meet our specified qualifications, and abort when medical tests or other factors reveal that the baby does not meet our standards. Human life is reduced to just another consumer product subject to consumer preferences and demand.

Do we recognize what this means? The abortion of Down syndrome babies is a scandal of the first degree, and this nation is growing more complacent and complicit in this scandal by the day. Beyond this, we can be certain that babies are now being targeted in the womb for reasons far beyond Down syndrome. Specialists working with autism are concerned that forthcoming genetic tests will put babies who carry markers for autism next on the list for prenatal search and destroy missions.

This news story out of Florida is a warning to the entire nation. What is the real scandal here - that this doctor was ready to kill a baby with Down syndrome, or merely that he aborted the wrong baby?

The answer to that question will tell us all we need to know about the conscience of the age.

47
posted on 04/18/2010 10:50:23 AM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

Ah, the Dutch: Having jumped off a vertical moral cliff when it comes to doctors killing patients, they seek to replace virtue with transparency through official reporting. The idea is that control over such practices can be maintained if the homicides are done in front of an open window rather than behind a closed curtain. But it doesnt actually turn out that way. Several studies have shown that active euthanasia is dramatically under reported by death doctorsdespite explicit legalization. The same is proving true of the quasi-decriminalized infanticide licenseat least according to an article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. (Dutch experience of monitoring active ending of life for newborns, J Med Ethics 2010;36:234-237, no link, heres the Abstract.)

One potential reason is the apparent increase in eugenic abortion:

The introduction of ultrasound examination in 2006 at 20 weeks gestation as part of the routine prenatal screening in The Netherlands is another relevant development in medical practice. Although our data provide no explanations, ultrasound examination is expected to result in higher detection rates of structural congenital abnormalities, as shown in other countries where routine ultrasound examination has been an integral part of prenatal care much longer. This increased prenatal detection rate may result in more induced abortions before 24 weeks of pregnancy, fewer infants born with a congenital abnormality, and fewer postnatal deaths as a result of congenital abnormalities. The fact that the abortion ratio (the number of induced abortions per 1000 newborns) is still increasing in The Netherlands supports this assumption. The impact of such developments is probably that the frequency of end-of-life decisions in infants in The Netherlands has decreased.

Still, aborting infants who would be disabled or dying if they were allowed to be born does not fully account for the dearth of reported infanticides. Rather than the 15-20 cases expected (in contrast, the Lancet has published two studies claiming about 80 infanticides per year), apparently only one was reported for 2007. The authorswho are Dutch bioethicists and/or physicians with different university medical centersarent buying that figure, and so they seek to find out the reasons for the under reporting of the killing. It is a sickening read because it presumes the propriety of infanticide, euphemistically called active ending of life, and further assumes that the only real problem with the whole pogrom against what are clearly presumed to be defective infants, is one of bureaucratic i-dotting and t-crossing. From the conclusion:

We identified several changes in the practice of end-of-life decision-making for infants that may explain the lack of reporting of cases of the active ending of life. Furthermore, it seems virtually impossible to comply with the requirements in the current regulation, due to either time constraints or the nature of the suffering that is addressed. If societal control of active ending of life in newborns is considered useful, a different regulation is needed. Attention should be paid to the requirements for careful practice in the current regulation, to physicians awareness of when they should report their act, and to a safe legal environmentfor reporting.

Yes, with euthanasia the impetus is to almost always to loosen regulations, in this case of babies, not to stop killing. But I dont know why these authors are surprised. Killing is always best done in the dark.

Culture of death, Wesley? What culture of death?

48
posted on 04/18/2010 10:53:04 AM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, April 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Kurt A. Kondrich is a 20 year veteran of the Pittsburgh police force. Six years ago his daughter Chloe was born with Down Syndrome. This motivated Kondrich to return to college to earn a masters degree in Early Intervention. After graduation he retired from his law enforcement career to become Director of Community/Family Outreach for Early Intervention in the Pittsburgh area. Kondrich read a news report last week about the Sarasota, Florida abortionist who lamented killing the "wrong" unborn child during a selective reduction procedure to eliminate a Down syndrome fetus. The father of Chloe and advocate for Down syndrome children could not sleep that night and got up at 3 a.m. to write the following response to the news article:

Targeted for Termination

This past week I read an article that disturbed me deeply concerning a Florida doctor who had his license revoked . The article stated that the doctor "lost his license for mistakenly aborting a healthy twin during a procedure targeting a deformed fetus." The doctor was "targeting a fetus with Down syndrome", and he admitted he "screwed up". Based on the facts presented in this article one can conclude that if the doctor had properly targeted the unborn child with Down syndrome and successfully terminated this twin then he would have kept his medical license.

My beautiful 6 year old daughter Chloe has Down syndrome and has brought immeasurable good and Blessings into this world, and I have observed no "deformities" about her. Parents of children with disabilities have fought very hard over the past decades to have our children fully included and accepted in schools and communities. We have made great progress with "inclusion" since the days of institutionalization, but with prenatal testing we have now entered a slippery slope that is rapidly turning into solid ice. If our society devalues the life of a person with a prenatal diagnosed disability and targets them for termination then this represents the ultimate "exclusion" and eventual "extinction".

Currently 90%+ of children diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome are "excluded" from ever shining their bright light in a lost world that has become obsessed with perfection and unrealistic traits. If the proper practice of medicine in our culture includes the skill of identifying and eliminating a prenatal twin who fails to meet the criteria of "normal", then we truly do need a massive overhaul of the "health care" system, and it is the soul of our nation that is "deformed".

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.